Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Tax Law
Tax Treatment Of A Marijuana Business, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard Bromberg
Tax Treatment Of A Marijuana Business, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard Bromberg
Articles
Currently, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes and permit the conduct of a business marketing of marijuana for that purpose. Eight of those states and the District of Columbia permit the recreational use of marijuana. There is reason to believe that more states will decriminalize the marketing of marijuana. However, marijuana is listed in Schedule 1 of the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) which makes it illegal under federal law to manufacture or distribute marijuana even when it is legal to do so under local state law. In a …
Provisions Denying A Deduction For Illegal Expenses And Expenses Of An Illegal Business Should Be Repealed, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard Bromberg
Provisions Denying A Deduction For Illegal Expenses And Expenses Of An Illegal Business Should Be Repealed, Douglas A. Kahn, Howard Bromberg
Articles
Currently, the tax law denies a deduction for business expenses that violate a federal or state law (but only if the state law is generally enforced). In addition, losses, including business losses, cannot be deducted if they arise out of an illegal activity. For example, medical expenses are denied a deduction if they are illegal. Kickbacks, bribes, and rebates given in connection with the Medicaid or Medicare program are nondeductible. Any expenses, legal or not, incurred in connection with the conduct of a business of selling a controlled substance that is prohibited by federal law (or by the law of …
Is The Report Of Lazarus's Death Premature? A Reply To Cameron And Postlewaite, Douglas A. Kahn
Is The Report Of Lazarus's Death Premature? A Reply To Cameron And Postlewaite, Douglas A. Kahn
Articles
Over a year ago, Ms. Faith Cuenin and I wrote an article in this Review (which I hereafter refer to as the "2004 Article") about the tax treatment of guaranteed payments under section 707(c) that are made in kind.' We concluded that a partnership does not recognize gain or loss on the making of a guaranteed payment with appreciated or depreciated property. We also concluded that the partner's basis in the property received will equal its fair market value at the time of payment, and that the payment does not affect the partner's outside basis in his partnership interest except …
Prevention Of Double Deductions Of A Single Loss: Solutions In Search Of A Problem, Douglas A. Kahn, Jeffrey H. Kahn
Prevention Of Double Deductions Of A Single Loss: Solutions In Search Of A Problem, Douglas A. Kahn, Jeffrey H. Kahn
Articles
In the current tax system, a corporation is treated as a separate taxable entity. This tax system is sometimes referred to as an entity tax or a double tax system. Since a corporation is a separate and distinct entity from its owners, the shareholders, the default rule is that transfers between them are treated as realization events. Without a specific Internal Revenue Code (Code) provision providing otherwise, such transactions will also require the parties to recognize the realized gain or loss. Congress has enacted several nonrecognition corporate provisions when forcing the recognition of income could prevent changes to the form …
Tax Law Uncertainty And The Role Of Tax Insurance, Kyle D. Logue
Tax Law Uncertainty And The Role Of Tax Insurance, Kyle D. Logue
Articles
In the broadest sense, this is an article about legal or regulatory uncertainty and the role that private and public insurance can play in managing it. More narrowly, the article is about tax law enforcement and the familiar if ill-defined distinctions between tax evasion, tax avoidance, and abusive tax avoidance. Most specifically, the article is about a new type of tax risk insurance policy, sometimes called tax indemnity insurance or transactional tax risk insurance that provides coverage against the risk that the Internal Revenue Service (Service) will disallow a taxpayer-insured's tax treatment of a particular transaction. The question is whether …
The Limited Liability Company: A Catalyst Exposing The Corporate Integration Question, Susan Pace Hamill
The Limited Liability Company: A Catalyst Exposing The Corporate Integration Question, Susan Pace Hamill
Michigan Law Review
The rise of the domestic limited liability company (LLC) from obscurity to its present position as a viable, mainstream alternative to the corporation or partnership was met with enormous enthusiasm by the business community and the practicing bar. First introduced by the State of Wyoming in 1977 and recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a partnership for federal income tax purposes in 1988, the LLC offers for the first time a domestic entity that combines the tax advantages of a partnership with limited liability protection for all members, an advantage commonly associated with corporations. The advantages of the …
Section 338 And Its Foolish Consistency Rules - The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds, Douglas A. Kahn
Section 338 And Its Foolish Consistency Rules - The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds, Douglas A. Kahn
Articles
The purposes of this Article are to examine whether there is any longer a reason for concern because a target corporation can choose selected assets for nonrecognition and to what extent the 1994 regulations properly deal with potentially abusive circumventions of tax goals. Before examining the current status of the consistency requirements, the historical background that led to the adoption of Section 338 and the operation of the section is discussed. The historical background includes: the judicially created Kimbell-Diamond rule, the codification and modification of that rule by the old version of Section 334(b)(2), the operation of the old version …
Should General Utilities Be Reinstated To Provide Partial Integration Of Corporate And Personal Income—Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?, Douglas A. Kahn
Should General Utilities Be Reinstated To Provide Partial Integration Of Corporate And Personal Income—Is Half A Loaf Better Than None?, Douglas A. Kahn
Articles
The General Utilities doctrine is the name given to the now largely defunct tax rule that a corporation does not recognize a gain or a loss on making a liquidating or nonliquidating distribution of an appreciated or depreciated asset to its shareholders. The roots of the doctrine, can be traced to a regulation promulgated in 1919 that denied realization of gain or loss to a corporation when making a liquidating distribution of an asset in kind. No regulatory provision existed which specified the extent to which realization would or would not be triggered by a nonliquidating distribution such as a …
The Solely-For-Voting-Stock Requirement In "B" Reorganizations Satisfied By Cash Payments For Fractional Shares-Mills V. Commissioner, Michigan Law Review
The Solely-For-Voting-Stock Requirement In "B" Reorganizations Satisfied By Cash Payments For Fractional Shares-Mills V. Commissioner, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
The Internal Revenue Code requires recognition of gains or losses realized upon a sale or exchange of property. An exception to this general rule is found in section 354(a)(1), the basic nonrecognition provision for stock-for-stock reorganizations. This section provides that a stockholder need not recognize gains or losses "if stock or securities in a corporation a party to a reorganization are, in pursuance of the plan of reorganization, exchanged solely for stock or securities in such corporation or in another corporation a party to the reorganization." However, before section 354 can be reached, the exchange must satisfy one of the …
Corporations- Allocation Of Subsidiary's Tax Benefit From Consolidated Return, Thomas B. Ridgley
Corporations- Allocation Of Subsidiary's Tax Benefit From Consolidated Return, Thomas B. Ridgley
Michigan Law Review
Defendant parent corporation received from its subsidiary 3,556,992 dollars in tax benefits which had accrued to the subsidiary from filing a consolidated income tax return. By agreement between parent and subsidiary, the profit-making corporation was to pay the losing corporation the savings created by the consolidated return. The working relationship of the two assured the subsidiary profits and the parent losses. Consequently, nearly all tax benefit inevitably flowed to the parent. Plaintiffs, the subsidiary's minority stockholders, sought a refunding of benefits allocated to defendant, claiming that the agreement was unfair and alleging that the defendant, as the subsidiary's majority shareholder, …
Taxation-Federal Income Tax-Liquidation Distributions Entitled To Both Capital Gains Treatment And Foreign Tax Credit, Lloyd C. Fell
Taxation-Federal Income Tax-Liquidation Distributions Entitled To Both Capital Gains Treatment And Foreign Tax Credit, Lloyd C. Fell
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, Associated, is an American corporation whose wholly-owned subsidiary, Automatic, owned all the stock of Filcrest, a Canadian corporation. In 1954 all the assets of Filcrest were distributed to Automatic pursuant to a plan of complete liquidation, accomplished in accordance with Canadian law. In its 1954 consolidated return, plaintiff treated the gain realized on the Filcrest liquidation as a capital gain, and also claimed a foreign tax credit for any Canadian income, war or excess profits taxes which Filcrest had paid over the years to Canada on that part of the liquidation distribution which represented Filcrest's accumulated earnings and profits. …
Taxation- Federal Income Tax-Status Of Stock-For-Stock Exchange Where Boot Is Involved, Roger B. Harris S. Ed
Taxation- Federal Income Tax-Status Of Stock-For-Stock Exchange Where Boot Is Involved, Roger B. Harris S. Ed
Michigan Law Review
Taxpayer was the sole stockholder of International Dairy Supply Company. In 1952, Foremost Dairies, Inc. acquired from taxpayer all his stock in Supply Company in exchange for 82,375 shares of Foremast's common stock and 3,000,000 dollars cash. Taxpayer reported as gain from the transaction only the 3,000,000 dollars "boot" received, less allowable expenses. The Commissioner determined a deficiency of 278,823 dollars, asserting that the nonrecognition provision of the 1939 Code counterpart of section 356 (a) (1) was inapplicable and therefore taxpayer's entire gain realized on the disposition must be recognized. The Tax Court upheld taxpayer's contention that by virtue of …
Taxation-Federal Income Tax-Corporation Held Not Collapsible Where View To Sell Arose After Construction Completed, Amalya L. Kearse
Taxation-Federal Income Tax-Corporation Held Not Collapsible Where View To Sell Arose After Construction Completed, Amalya L. Kearse
Michigan Law Review
Petitioners had formed a corporation for the purpose of building and operating a housing project. After the construction was completed and most of the apartments rented, small cracks were discovered in the buildings. Without soliciting engineering or other technical opinion, petitioners sold their stock in the corporation. The Tax Court upheld respondent-commissioner's taxing the profit from the sale of stock as ordinary income rather than capital gain, on the theory that the corporation was "collapsible" under section 117 (m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. On appeal, held, reversed. Since the view to the sale of stock did …
The Taxable Income Of Cooperatives, Roswell Magill, Allen H. Merrill
The Taxable Income Of Cooperatives, Roswell Magill, Allen H. Merrill
Michigan Law Review
This article is a study of the exemption in section 101(12) of "farmers', fruit growers', or like associations organized and operated on a cooperative basis"; and, in particular, of the taxability of the income of such corporations. The basic question is, What is the taxable income of a cooperative, in the absence of statutory exemption or exemption by administrative ruling? Do such business corporations have an income from their businesses which in these days of revenue stringency should be taxed as other business income must be taxed?